Nov 12, 2012 8:00am EST
you said is a little, a little off from what we're hearing here in washington. >> guest: well, i think there's definitely, um, opinion a big focus -- been a big focus on wireless and what the capability is. we're out there in the world today and understand the spectrum limitations are real, um, engineers will tell you about that, that it just can't deliver the kind of bandwidth that we need to really accomplish the goals that businesses and consumers want in their homes. and so what we're trying to do at the usta is constantly remind people that without the wired network, you're not going to have the wireless network. and so, um, the policymakers, i think, understand it better than ever, that, um, you need fiber facilities into these cell towers in order to enable them to carry broadband at faster and faster speeds, and you need better and better, um, access to broadband capabilities in the home. >> host: jeff gardner is president and ceo of the windstream corporation, and he this year is chairman of the group us telecom. paul barbagallo is with bloomberg. >> so we talked about univers
Nov 19, 2012 8:00am EST
in our washington studio is paul barbagallo of bloomberg. professor noll, first of all, what was your role or activity during the breakup of at&t, and what led to that decision? >> guest: well, the roots of the antitrust case were in a presidential task force that was formed during the johnson administration in the late 1960s called the telecommunications policy task force. it had concluded that the telecommunications industry, at least the part of it that was in the federal jurisdiction, could be competitive and made recommendations both to the -- mainly to the federal communications commission about how to cause that to happen. then when the nixon administration came along, the holdover staff in the antitrust division after watching for a couple of years decided to pursue antitrust rather than fcc regulation as the means to introduce competition. my role was that i was on both the telecommunications policy task force, and i was one of the outside economists advising the department of justice during the mid '70s when the case was actually being shaped. >> host: and professor hausman?
Nov 19, 2012 8:00pm EST
to be a separate business. there are always people arguing in washington. but if you actually look, the latest government statistics are 32% of the people don't even have landline telephones anymore. they use cell phones. the competition out there, in terms of the internet. 4-g is coming in. i would be willing to predict that in 10 or 15 years, the majority of youth on the internet will be over mobile phones and cell phones throughout the world. >> host: if you expand that to wireless devices so you don't limit it to cell phones -- >> guest: that's what i mean. tablets, you name it, exactly. >> host: i think the really important point about your question is that the mindset of the world well into the mid-1990s was that wireline access was stuck on poles or buried in the ground was the key to understanding competition in telecommunications. the intriguing part of the wireless story is how very few people inside the industry -- that that is why the mckenzie mckinsey report listed, it wasn't just judge green and the fcc who did not understand the potential of wireless. it was the entire industry,
Nov 17, 2012 6:30pm EST
in the washington studio is paul. professor noll, first of all, what with your activity during the breakup of at&t and what led to that decision? >> the antitrust case was formed during the johnson administration the late 1960's and a presidential task force called the telecommunications policy task force. it concluded the telecommunications industry, the part in federal jurisdiction, should be competitive and made recommendations both -- mainly to the fcc about how to cause that to happen. then when the knicks and the administration can along, the holdover staff of the antitrust division decided to pursue it antitrust rather than it fcc regulation as the means to introduce competition. i was on both the telecommunication policy task force and i was one of the outside economists advising the department of justice during the mid-1970s when the case was actually being shipped. >> professor hausman? >> i did not come into the proceeding until 1982, and thereafter when the antitrust division decided to review it about three years later the effect of the breakup, there was a report that was done, and